Adam Schiff Quotes

“We expect to have Mr. Bannon back in, we hope very soon, with a different position by the White House.” – Adam Schiff, EyeWitness News, 17 January 2018.

“This was effectively a gag order by the White House [referring to Steve Bannon’s refusal to answer the questions of the House Intelligence Committee came at the instruction of the White House].” – Adam Schiff, Yahoo, 17 January 2018.

“This was the first time we saw a witness refuse to answer the questions under the instructions of the White House or claim that the White House might later invoke privilege.” – Adam Schiff, The Guardian, 17 January 2018.

“Specifically what’s the basis for his assertion that the president met with the participants in the Trump Tower meeting… What [Bannon] knows about the president’s knowledge of that meeting, as well as his concerns over money laundering which has been a persistent concern of ours as well.” – Adam Schiff, ABC News, 15 January 2018.

“We know from the Erik Prince testimony…that [Prince] had a meeting with Steve Bannon before he made that trip to the Seychelles traveling halfway around the world to have what he described essentially as a coincidental meeting with a Russian in a bar… Which just happened to be a head of one of the Russian Investment Banks, so we’d like to know whether Steve Bannon was involved in establishing any kind of a back channel of with the Russians.” – Adam Schiff, ABC News, 15 January 2018.

“In light of the selective leaks of Mr. Simpson’s testimony and the misleading manner in which Fusion GPS’ role has been characterized, I support releasing the transcript… The Majority has released transcripts of Dr. Page and Mr. Prince when it suited their interests, and likewise should make an exception here.” – Adam Schiff, Beaumont Enterprise, 15 January 2018.

“Republicans want to conduct just enough interviews to give the impression of a serious investigation.” – Adam Schiff, Sentinel Source, 14 January 2018.

“We can’t do a thorough and credible investigation unless we obtain these documents — unless we talk to these witnesses.” – Adam Schiff, News 4 Jax, 12 January 2018.

“This investigation has gone about 1/4 of the time of the Benghazi investigations [referring to the GOP-led inquiries after the 2012 terrorist attacks in Benghazi, Libya]… But part of the reason why this investigation has taken longer than it should is because the majority has sat on our requests for witnesses for months and months and months.” – Adam Schiff, News 4 Jax, 12 January 2018.

“It may be necessary for us to (release the names) in future if the majority does shut down the investigation or put it in some kind of hibernation… There are witnesses who have knowledge of the Trump Tower meeting and what it was about who have not been brought to our committee — and need to.” – Adam Schiff, News 4 Jax, 12 January 2018.

“Without getting complete phone records .. we will not get a full picture of what conversations may have taken place between the president and his son contemporaneous with the Trump Tower meeting.” – Adam Schiff, News 4 Jax, 12 January 2018.

“I think it would be valuable for her [Ivanka Trump] to testify and come before the committee.” – Adam Schiff, News 4 Jax, 12 January 2018.

“All the press that have dealt with me in this investigation know, often to their frustration, that I don’t discuss the contents of our investigative interviews. The only exception I make is when people refuse to answer questions because I don’t allow them to leave the room and say we cooperated fully… I’m not surprised by Sarah Huckabee Sanders’ attack… “They owe me an apology, but frankly it would be a wasted errand to ask for one.” – Adam Schiff, Daily Caller, 11 January 2018.

“There are witnesses who have knowledge of the Trump Tower meeting and what it was about prior to the meeting that have not been brought before our committee.” – Adam Schiff, Yahoo, 11 January 2018.

“I think that if there’s credible information that Ivanka Trump had contact with any participants in that meeting, at the time of the meeting, that she should be brought in… She may have more valuable insights on a variety of other issues as well.” – Adam Schiff, Yahoo, 11 January 2018.

“Well, look, I don’t think anyone is particularly surprised by what has been revealed in the Wolff book in terms of the questions people working closest with the president have about his capacity to do the job… I don’t think there is anyone in Congress, frankly, of either party who does not concur at least privately with those observations and concerns. Certainly very few are willing to express them publicly in Congress, and I think that’s to the detriment of our institution… The big question for us, though, is, you know, plainly, we have a seriously flawed human being in the Oval Office.” – Adam Schiff, Washington Examiner, 7 January 2018.

“And among the most serious, from my point of view, are these reports that the Justice Department at the president’s urging is now investigating Hillary Clinton again… That would be a violation of law, the protections we put in place post-Watergate. And no one should imagine that, if that’s the case, that the president won’t similarly badger the Justice Department to investigate anyone who runs against him in 2020.” –Adam Schiff, Washington Times, 7 January 2018.

“And I think that these cracks that we’re seeing in the independence of the Justice Department ought to concern every American… That ought to be far more important than any party concerns. But, right now, it certainly doesn’t look that way.” – Adam Schiff, The Hill, 7 January 2018.

“If they are investigating Hillary Clinton, it doesn’t take a genius, let alone a stable genius, to see why… It’s not because there is some new evidence that has come to light… It’s because they’re being badgered by the White House to do it. You simply cannot explain it, I think, any other way.” – Adam Schiff, Politico, 7 January 2018.

“The allegations in the [New York] Times piece, if accurate, provide further potential evidence that the White House was engaged in an effort to obstruct justice… trying to set up some predicate for firing him [James Comey] without disclosing what the true reason was… That suggests they wanted to build a case publicly to fire Comey. If this was part of an effort to conceal the real motive for firing Comey, that’s very pertinent to obstruction of justice.” – Adam Schiff, Washington Examiner, 5 January 2018.

“If it’s accurate that the White House said this document said nothing about the Russia investigation, and that turned out to be another false statement, that may be further evidence of corrupt intent in concealing, again, the true motivation behind the Comey firing.” – Adam Schiff, Washington Examiner, 5 January 2018.

“No, you don’t [replying to Donald Trump]. You can do what you want with your golf courses. But the country and its Justice Department belong to the American people.” – Adam Schiff, Washington Examiner, 29 December 2017.

“If we put a warrant requirement on the front end for everything, there are a number of circumstances where we would want law enforcement and intelligence agencies to do searches, but they would lack probable cause, … Some groups will not be satisfied with anything short of a blanket warrant requirement. I fear that could lead to a reluctance to conduct searches in national security cases, and a stove-piping of information.” – Adam Schiff, Gulf-Times, 29 Dcember 2017.

“The worst thing I think we can do would be to make a report to the public that was incomplete and therefore misleading and have to explain why months from now what we told the public just wasn’t true because we didn’t want to find the evidence.” – Adam Schiff, ABC News, 29 Dcember 2017.

“My experience has been that he has been a professional FBI agent and works with an impressive team of other agents, … And I don’t know that I understand the calls that I’ve heard from some to fire him. They seem to be irresponsible, in my view.” – Adam Schiff, New 4 Jax, 19 december 2017.

You May Also Like

1 Comment

Just bring on a case against Trump already. It’s been over a year with claims more outrageous than this. Don’t the Dems believe their claims? If they did, they would prosecute. No, this isn’t about truth or actual crimes. It’s just a way to keep the idea of crimes in people’s minds. It’s called, managing the conversation. The Dems are full of shit.